Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Hmmm, I thought he had a pretty good handle on it. With what part do you disagree? .. .. > > Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@... > <mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20B\ ig%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy> > aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1> > > > Mon Apr 6, 2009 10:34 pm (PDT) > > steve- > your answers just show out of touch with the real world and very > condescending to all poor women in this country. It is not that simple and > I really am taken back at your short sightedness on this issue. > > -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: > Thyroid Doctor in the Los Angeles / Orange County area > > > Nancie Barnett wrote: > > Tell that to the poor women who because we have no socialized child care > in > > this country, can't afford to find work and care for their kids at the > same > > time. It is a catch 22 situation for them. > > Aside for women who have been raped, random sex and failure to plan > should be something other people should pay for and or have any > responsibility for. > > > Yes, there are some who milk the system but there are infinitely > more who > > desperately need welfare, wic and food stamps and without them would > starve > > along with their kids. > > When charities were funded by individuals, people tended to get back on > their feet since they knew the help was not for a lifetime. > > > Additionally, welfare has changed and now they can not stay on the > program > > indefinitely. There is a limit to the time you can be on welfare. Most > > states limit it to 5 years. > > IN 5 years one could get a Master's degree but people milk the system to > the end and then wonder what they are going to do. > > > The AFDC program underwent a significant change under > Republican-sponsored > > legislation in 1996 which was signed by President Clinton. States were > given > > far greater latitude in designing their family welfare programs. > > And this kind of thing should ONLY be a state program designed or not > according to the electorate of each state. The FED was never granted > those rights. > > > As the new > > name implies, TANF can no longer be a lifelong program. All states are > > required to limit benefits after the expiration of a specified > period of > > time. > > Here we have the FEDs telling the states how to run the states business. > Naughty. > > > > > Under most state plans, all benefits will be terminated after five > > years. Each program requires virtually all adult participants to > > participate in work programs. If not working within two years, > recipients > > must perform community service as a condition of receiving benefits. > > > > http://www.newsbatch.com/welfare.htm > <http://www.newsbatch.com/welfare.htm> > > > > Communism is the bad end of socialism. As my professor at UCSB said, > it is > > socialism gone bad. > > I am indifferent to your claims about your professor. He is irrelevant. > > > > -- > > Steve - dudescholar4@... <mailto:dudescholar4%40basicmail.net> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 You're living in a fantasy land, . The proposed energy [carbon] tax alone will be an additional tax of hundreds of billions of dollars on _everybody_. Everything you consume uses energy if you don't grow it/produce it yourself [and then it still uses some]. This tax will disproportionally effect those at the bottom, because they must spend a higher percentage of their incomes on necessities. I don't know Steve's net worth, but I'll bet it's a heck of a lot more than mine. Or probably yours. Sometime just for fun look at the proportion of US income taxes paid by the top 5%. And the bottom 50%. It's not capitalists and free market people who " look down " on the lower income segments. Rather they are the ones who want those people to have the opportunity to better their situation. Liberals/Democrats depend upon the lower class remaining destitute and dependent upon the unfulfillable promises they make in order to get the votes to promote their lifestyle of the powerful and rich without actually contributing anything to the general welfare. .. .. > > Posted by: " " kennio@... > <mailto:kennio@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big\ %20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy> > Kennio <Kennio> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 1:57 am (PDT) > > " Socialism makes the entire problem larger and more intractable while the > government rapes those who are on their way to achieving the American > dream of financial independence. > " > American dream... American fantasy. Thats the problem with people like > you have this fantasy that one day YOU will be rich, so preserving the > privileges of the rich are important to you even if it is working > against your own self interests. Its mind boggling. > You actually admire those at the TOP milking the system... and even > when they flaunt it; the loopholes and the corporate welfare, the > hundreds of millions in salary. > Its a fantasy you really need to get over. The rich flourished under > the current system and I'm sure they will survive the proposed 3% tax > increase. I guess we'll just have to put up with the huge drop in > philanthropy. You paint them as incredibly generous when their taxes > are lower...(more of your " rich man " fantasy). I think the last 8 > years shows that they get incredibly GREEDY when things are going > their way. > You focus at the people at the bottom who you think of as dirt and > seeth at how they are milking the system by getting a single digit > slice of the pie. All the while the top 5 percent just raped us in the > ass for generational wealth... they robbed your children and your > grandchildren and STILL managed to keep you focused on those you see > as beneath you who rob you of crumbs comparatively. > I guess some people need that... people beneath them and a fantasy > world to aspire to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Yeah right. The 'free market' colludes with many forces that have the 'little guy' in a trance and a fantasy land of riches waiting just around the corner; all the while shaking down the poor guy for every penny he has. Then he gets blamed for his foolish ways. Alan Greenspan urged people to take ARM mortgages, MSNBC urged people to buy Bear Sterns 7 weeks before it collapsed... it is a conspiracy of misinformation. Big business feeds on little guy. I fed on the little guy while in real estate. Come on, give the poor bastard a break (whether he wants it or not). Your argument supports that we in the upper income tax brackets have to shoulder the burden a while... the little guy dies if we don't. We are on shaky ground right now and a 3% tax increase is the least I can do. It IS a matter of patriotism. ________________________________ From: <res075oh@...> hypothyroidism Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2009 2:05:16 PM Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy You're living in a fantasy land, . The proposed energy [carbon] tax alone will be an additional tax of hundreds of billions of dollars on _everybody_. Everything you consume uses energy if you don't grow it/produce it yourself [and then it still uses some]. This tax will disproportionally effect those at the bottom, because they must spend a higher percentage of their incomes on necessities. I don't know Steve's net worth, but I'll bet it's a heck of a lot more than mine. Or probably yours. Sometime just for fun look at the proportion of US income taxes paid by the top 5%. And the bottom 50%. It's not capitalists and free market people who " look down " on the lower income segments. Rather they are the ones who want those people to have the opportunity to better their situation. Liberals/Democrats depend upon the lower class remaining destitute and dependent upon the unfulfillable promises they make in order to get the votes to promote their lifestyle of the powerful and rich without actually contributing anything to the general welfare. .. .. > > Posted by: " " kennio (DOT) com > <mailto:kennio (DOT) com?Subject=%20Re% 3A%20Cows% 2C%20Geopolitics %2C%20and% 20Big%20Business %20Re%3A% 20%5Bhypothyroid ism%5D%20Re% 3A%20Thy> > Kennio <http://profiles. / Kennio> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 1:57 am (PDT) > > " Socialism makes the entire problem larger and more intractable while the > government rapes those who are on their way to achieving the American > dream of financial independence. > " > American dream... American fantasy. Thats the problem with people like > you have this fantasy that one day YOU will be rich, so preserving the > privileges of the rich are important to you even if it is working > against your own self interests. Its mind boggling. > You actually admire those at the TOP milking the system... and even > when they flaunt it; the loopholes and the corporate welfare, the > hundreds of millions in salary. > Its a fantasy you really need to get over. The rich flourished under > the current system and I'm sure they will survive the proposed 3% tax > increase. I guess we'll just have to put up with the huge drop in > philanthropy. You paint them as incredibly generous when their taxes > are lower...(more of your " rich man " fantasy). I think the last 8 > years shows that they get incredibly GREEDY when things are going > their way. > You focus at the people at the bottom who you think of as dirt and > seeth at how they are milking the system by getting a single digit > slice of the pie. All the while the top 5 percent just raped us in the > ass for generational wealth... they robbed your children and your > grandchildren and STILL managed to keep you focused on those you see > as beneath you who rob you of crumbs comparatively. > I guess some people need that... people beneath them and a fantasy > world to aspire to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 I think you need to visit India and China as I have. There is no way that the US will ever be the same with these two countries developing and their cheap educated work force. No amount of ridiculous tax cuts here are going to lure US companies back and its bizarre to image that wages would rise if they are paying next to nothing overseas. ________________________________ From: Steve <dudescholar4@...> hypothyroidism Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2009 7:15:18 PM Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy wrote: > Your argument supports that we in the upper income tax brackets > have to shoulder the burden a while... the little guy dies if we > don't. I don't think so. The people who should have lost money are the investors in the credit default swaps. They were wealthy, have an obligation to understand their investments, and were in a position to take risks. Stock holders and bond holders in banks also have an obligation to understand their risks. Then the banks started to have problems, the losers should have been the wealthy investors, not the tax payers. No taxes should ever be foisted on anyone to pay for the failures of the rich to manage their own investment risks. There should have been no government bailouts and bankruptcy should have been par for the course. The ideal that the people should pay for the incompetent of the largest institutions is a fallacy. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers is going smoothly with assets being sold off in a timely and not a rushed fashion. The banks that were wise managers were forced into taking government freebies since there competitive position would be compromised by poorly managed banks being allowed to continue to operate and compete with them. What should have happened is that poorly managed banks should have failed and their assets sold off to the wise managed banks. > We are on shaky ground right now and a 3% tax increase is the > least I can do. It IS a matter of patriotism. We are not on shaky ground. If taxes were to be cut, government revenues would go up. If a point of sales tax were to be created and all other taxes eliminated, many companies would quickly relocated back to the USA, 10s of millions of jobs would be created and market forces would drive wages dramatically higher. -- Steve - dudescholar4@ basicmail. net Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html " If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 We should only be doing those things we as American can be the best at. Other countries should do the same. That will result in the " most " of what each is the best at driving the standard of living upwards everywhere. I'm considering forming an international business corporation (IBC) to help handle asset protection issues, allow my children to inherit all my assets without the government taxing it at 55%, and to use the ability of IBCs to retain earnings without penalties, something that one cannot do in the USA. Assets held in an IBC can in many countries be inherited without there being a taxable event. In the USA, that's not true. In the USA, one can retain only so much earnings and then one has to distribute the rest as dividends or be penalized. The company pays taxes on the earnings and distributes what's left to the stock holders who then have to pay taxes again. In both cases they often pay the max tax rate, double taxation. After the double FED taxes and double state taxes, one has about 30% of the earnings left to use. An IBC can retain earnings and only distribute what you want to have for your lifting expenses and enough additional to pay the US tax the US things it has a right to impose on US citizens even when those earnings are take place internationally. This has nothing to do with tax havens which can be an additional option. Also, if I was building a factory, I would build it where I would get the best combination of profit and tax efficiency. My goal is to make money, not be an altruist. Factory workers in other countries are quite happy to work for a good wage there. However, there are some things that would be done in the USA if the tax environment was more friendly. Steve wrote: > I think you need to visit India and China as I have. There is no way that the US will ever be the same with these two countries developing and their cheap educated work force. No amount of ridiculous tax cuts here are going to lure US companies back and its bizarre to image that wages would rise if they are paying next to nothing overseas. > > > > ________________________________ > From: Steve <dudescholar4@...> > hypothyroidism > Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2009 7:15:18 PM > Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy > > > > > wrote: > >> Your argument supports that we in the upper income tax brackets >> have to shoulder the burden a while... the little guy dies if we >> don't. > > I don't think so. The people who should have lost money are the > investors in the credit default swaps. They were wealthy, have an > obligation to understand their investments, and were in a position to > take risks. Stock holders and bond holders in banks also have an > obligation to understand their risks. Then the banks started to have > problems, the losers should have been the wealthy investors, not the tax > payers. No taxes should ever be foisted on anyone to pay for the > failures of the rich to manage their own investment risks. There should > have been no government bailouts and bankruptcy should have been par for > the course. The ideal that the people should pay for the incompetent of > the largest institutions is a fallacy. The bankruptcy of Lehman > Brothers is going smoothly with assets being sold off in a timely and > not a rushed fashion. The banks that were wise managers were forced > into taking government freebies since there competitive position would > be compromised by poorly managed banks being allowed to continue to > operate and compete with them. What should have happened is that poorly > managed banks should have failed and their assets sold off to the wise > managed banks. > >> We are on shaky ground right now and a 3% tax increase is the >> least I can do. It IS a matter of patriotism. > > We are not on shaky ground. If taxes were to be cut, government > revenues would go up. If a point of sales tax were to be created and > all other taxes eliminated, many companies would quickly relocated back > to the USA, 10s of millions of jobs would be created and market forces > would drive wages dramatically higher. > -- Steve - dudescholar4@... Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html " If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Nancie Barnett wrote: > You and Steve are speaking from a conservative out of touch mentality > compared to the parents and single parents out there that are struggling to > survive in a economy that has not provided a living wage in decades that can > not keep up with the rates of inflation. This is a kookie idea that someone is required to provide a " living wage " that other people get to define. Work has value. Some work is more valuable than others. If I want to get something done, I will over payment. If no one wants to do the work I have for the price I'm willing to pay, so sad, too bad for me. If 100 people line up then I can reduce the price until I still have good workers left who want the job. That will establish the value. Paying more is over paying. It's like if you were to go to buy a car and they could look at your bank account and W2 statements and then tell you what price you had to pay for a car. You might have to pay $30,000 for a car the next guy only has to pay $5,000 for. Value in goods and services shouldn't be adjusted based on ability to pay and neither should wages. > Our economy has been a 2 person > wage earners for a long time. Yet, even as a struggling college student, my wife never had to work. We learned to live with less. > The majority of Americans and defiantly the > lower income brackets of this society can not make it on a single salary. > The cost of living is killing families in this country and if wasn't for > welfare, WIC, and other social service programs they would be dead. Other countries do on a lot less. I think your are over reacting. > They > are not milking the system. They rely on the system now more than ever. You are saying that life is so tough nowadays that some people just need a nanny state to take care of them and that other people are somehow obligated to take special care of them. > Charities can not keep up with the demand, because people with money are not > contributing their fair share to society and the number of poor people are There is no such thing as " a fair share " that is other than paying for actual value received. > rising due to the last 8 years of felony behavior on the part of greedy > wall street felons. Food banks literally don't have enough food to go > around and many of the smaller regional charities are going broke trying to > keep up with the demand. But your solution is to destroy capitol, take away wealth, and destroy incentive to be productive. > If we did not have the government social services , poor people would be > more screwed than they are. I think people are a lot more screwed up because their is a socialist welfare state. People think the state has an obligation to feed and clothe them and so they begin to believe they are entitled and dependant. > > Not everyone can afford to get an education and > not everyone has the means to get to a job that maybe 50 miles away from > their home, because our public transportation system is broke. What about The states are still giving out education money. Anyone who really wants an education can get one. It's a matter of desire and initiative. There is no obligation in the constitution to provide any form of public transportation, not horses, not airplanes, not jets, not cruse liners, not cars, not boats, not buses, to carnages, not rickshaws, not free shoes, nothing, nada, zip. > the desperately poor areas of this country , the inner cities slums, they > are born into poverty and they will most likely die in poverty because there > is not enough money out there to bring them out of poverty. I lived in government subsidized housing once. Heck, illegal immigrants who come here with nothing, not even the ability to speak English, frequently manage to do quite will working jobs that people int he issuer city slums refuse to do. > You are going to tell them they can't or shouldn't accept governmental aid > so they can feed their families? I expect they will take whatever they can. However, if there was no fall back position, many of them would have a newfound drive to make a difference. > It is criminal that in a country as wealthy as ours, that we still have > desperate poverty and homelessness. No it's not. There will always be people with problems. Criminal means it would be illegal for me to buy a good book to read when there was still someone somewhere hungry that I should feed instead of reading and criminal means it would be illegal for me to work less then 80 hours a week so that I could feed as many people as possible. I think not. I'm not interested in socialism-communism. Free markets create the highest average standard of living and we haven't really had free markets yet, more like fascism, but still far above anything that the communist-socialist system could ever achieve. Communism-socialism didn't even get rid or poverty, it just made most people equally impoverished except for the very " elite " . Steve > > -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: >> Thyroid Doctor in the Los Angeles / Orange County area >> >> >> Nancie Barnett wrote: >>> Tell that to the poor women who because we have no socialized child care >> in >>> this country, can't afford to find work and care for their kids at the >> same >>> time. It is a catch 22 situation for them. >> Aside for women who have been raped, random sex and failure to plan >> should be something other people should pay for and or have any >> responsibility for. >> >>> Yes, there are some who milk the system but there are infinitely >> more who >>> desperately need welfare, wic and food stamps and without them would >> starve >>> along with their kids. >> When charities were funded by individuals, people tended to get back on >> their feet since they knew the help was not for a lifetime. >> >>> Additionally, welfare has changed and now they can not stay on the >> program >>> indefinitely. There is a limit to the time you can be on welfare. Most >>> states limit it to 5 years. >> IN 5 years one could get a Master's degree but people milk the system to >> the end and then wonder what they are going to do. >> >>> The AFDC program underwent a significant change under >> Republican-sponsored >>> legislation in 1996 which was signed by President Clinton. States were >> given >>> far greater latitude in designing their family welfare programs. >> And this kind of thing should ONLY be a state program designed or not >> according to the electorate of each state. The FED was never granted >> those rights. >> >>> As the new >>> name implies, TANF can no longer be a lifelong program. All states are >>> required to limit benefits after the expiration of a specified >> period of >>> time. >> Here we have the FEDs telling the states how to run the states business. >> Naughty. >> >>> Under most state plans, all benefits will be terminated after five >>> years. Each program requires virtually all adult participants to >>> participate in work programs. If not working within two years, >> recipients >>> must perform community service as a condition of receiving benefits. >>> >>> http://www.newsbatch.com/welfare.htm >> <http://www.newsbatch.com/welfare.htm> >>> Communism is the bad end of socialism. As my professor at UCSB said, >> it is >>> socialism gone bad. >> I am indifferent to your claims about your professor. He is irrelevant. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Steve - dudescholar4@... <mailto:dudescholar4%40basicmail.net> -- Steve - dudescholar4@... Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html " If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Steve- Like I said you are out of touch and sound extremely republican and short sighted. The concept of a living wage is not a Kooky idea at all. In fact cities and local and state governments have struggled with that concept for years. It is a FACT that inflation and the cost of living has outpaced sustainable wages aka a living wage that allow people to provide a decent life for their themselves and their families. Everything costs more and people have to choose what to pay for, their food or rent/mortgage or health care or utilities or gas, etc. It is moral and ethical for this society to make sure that all people living here have the capacity to have a decent life. I for one care about everyone having a chance to have a better life and to have decent wages and to not struggle everyday of their lives just to provide for their families. -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: >> Thyroid Doctor in the Los Angeles / Orange County area >> >> >> Nancie Barnett wrote: >>> Tell that to the poor women who because we have no socialized child care >> in >>> this country, can't afford to find work and care for their kids at the >> same >>> time. It is a catch 22 situation for them. >> Aside for women who have been raped, random sex and failure to plan >> should be something other people should pay for and or have any >> responsibility for. >> >>> Yes, there are some who milk the system but there are infinitely >> more who >>> desperately need welfare, wic and food stamps and without them would >> starve >>> along with their kids. >> When charities were funded by individuals, people tended to get back on >> their feet since they knew the help was not for a lifetime. >> >>> Additionally, welfare has changed and now they can not stay on the >> program >>> indefinitely. There is a limit to the time you can be on welfare. Most >>> states limit it to 5 years. >> IN 5 years one could get a Master's degree but people milk the system to >> the end and then wonder what they are going to do. >> >>> The AFDC program underwent a significant change under >> Republican-sponsored >>> legislation in 1996 which was signed by President Clinton. States were >> given >>> far greater latitude in designing their family welfare programs. >> And this kind of thing should ONLY be a state program designed or not >> according to the electorate of each state. The FED was never granted >> those rights. >> >>> As the new >>> name implies, TANF can no longer be a lifelong program. All states are >>> required to limit benefits after the expiration of a specified >> period of >>> time. >> Here we have the FEDs telling the states how to run the states business. >> Naughty. >> >>> Under most state plans, all benefits will be terminated after five >>> years. Each program requires virtually all adult participants to >>> participate in work programs. If not working within two years, >> recipients >>> must perform community service as a condition of receiving benefits. >>> >>> http://www.newsbatch.com/welfare.htm >> <http://www.newsbatch.com/welfare.htm> >>> Communism is the bad end of socialism. As my professor at UCSB said, >> it is >>> socialism gone bad. >> I am indifferent to your claims about your professor. He is irrelevant. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Steve - dudescholar4@... <mailto:dudescholar4%40basicmail.net> -- Steve - dudescholar4@... Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html " If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 If you have evaluated the situation and believe that the government bureaucracy can more efficiently dispose of your excess funds than you can then you're probably right. I suppose it is true for a very small percentage of people. The question arises as to how they managed to amass the wealth to start with if they didn't inherit it, given such a myopic view. If you think it's patriotic to pay more taxes perhaps you should send a note to most of Obama's appointments [good liberal democrats all] who failed to get the message. .. .. > > Posted by: " " kennio@... > <mailto:kennio@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big\ %20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy> > Kennio <Kennio> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 2:49 pm (PDT) > > Yeah right. The 'free market' colludes with many forces that have the > 'little guy' in a trance and a fantasy land of riches waiting just > around the corner; all the while shaking down the poor guy for every > penny he has. Then he gets blamed for his foolish ways. Alan Greenspan > urged people to take ARM mortgages, MSNBC urged people to buy Bear > Sterns 7 weeks before it collapsed... it is a conspiracy of > misinformation. Big business feeds on little guy. I fed on the little > guy while in real estate. Come on, give the poor bastard a break > (whether he wants it or not). > > Your argument supports that we in the upper income tax brackets have > to shoulder the burden a while... the little guy dies if we don't. We > are on shaky ground right now and a 3% tax increase is the least I can > do. It IS a matter of patriotism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Once again: It's not a matter of need. It is a matter of owning what you earn, whether it's a lot or not. .. .. > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@... > <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%\ 20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy> > matchermaam <matchermaam> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 5:06 pm (PDT) > > And the Republicans have contributed to the general welfare? How, by > giving tax cuts to the wealthy that don't need them? > > Roni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Be very careful with condo's. First, make sure the monthly fee [whatever it's called] is sufficient to pay the maintenance and so on that it must cover; AND that it does not raise your monthly outlay beyond what you can reasonably spare. Second: Make sure that there are not a lot of vacancies, which will equate to a lot of fees not collected which translates to even higher fees for those remaining. And make sure that there are not a lot of delinquencies among those present. Finally, you probably might not want to buy where a large percentage of residents are renters, or allowed to be renters; but that's a value judgment that would not apply to all cases. Look at the books and make sure the required reserves are there. Condo's are _very inexpensive_ locally now. .. .. > > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@... > <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%\ 20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy> > matchermaam <matchermaam> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 5:09 pm (PDT) > > Where are you finding these houses for 20K and 40K? You can't even get > a condo for those prices in the Seattle area. > > Roni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 The " little guys " who put up several hundred thousand dollars they had laying around somewhere as a deposit aren't exactly what I think of when I say " little guy " . Many people of apparent average intelligence and education have zero or negative net worth and couldn't put up a few hundred dollars from available cash. Those are among the financial " little guys " . .. .. > > Posted by: " " kennio@... > <mailto:kennio@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big\ %20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy> > Kennio <Kennio> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 5:30 pm (PDT) > > Yeah, Trump and Rush limbaugh are leaving NYC... to avoid paying > higher taxes. Meanwhile Trumps projects are filing bankruptcy around > the country and in Mexico... of course screwing the little guy who > paid deposits in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 - the administration has the message, it is the republicans that haven't got the message and a few libertarians...... My sister makes over 4 million a year and she will gladly pay more in taxes since she knows that it is the right thing to do. Besides Obama's tax plan increase on the wealthy is still far less than in Reagan years and in other administrations. If I made that amount, I would pay the tax increase too. Since, I don't why should I pay more taxes than her? She agrees with me. Why should the middle class pay more taxes than the rich?? The rich can afford to pay the 3% increase, the rest of the population can not afford to. -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy If you have evaluated the situation and believe that the government bureaucracy can more efficiently dispose of your excess funds than you can then you're probably right. I suppose it is true for a very small percentage of people. The question arises as to how they managed to amass the wealth to start with if they didn't inherit it, given such a myopic view. If you think it's patriotic to pay more taxes perhaps you should send a note to most of Obama's appointments [good liberal democrats all] who failed to get the message. .. .. > > Posted by: " " kennio@... > <mailto:kennio@ com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3 %20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy> > Kennio <Kennio> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 2:49 pm (PDT) > > Yeah right. The 'free market' colludes with many forces that have the > 'little guy' in a trance and a fantasy land of riches waiting just > around the corner; all the while shaking down the poor guy for every > penny he has. Then he gets blamed for his foolish ways. Alan Greenspan > urged people to take ARM mortgages, MSNBC urged people to buy Bear > Sterns 7 weeks before it collapsed... it is a conspiracy of > misinformation. Big business feeds on little guy. I fed on the little > guy while in real estate. Come on, give the poor bastard a break > (whether he wants it or not). > > Your argument supports that we in the upper income tax brackets have > to shoulder the burden a while... the little guy dies if we don't. We > are on shaky ground right now and a 3% tax increase is the least I can > do. It IS a matter of patriotism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 And once again, why do the wealthy Need any tax cuts??? They don't need any tax cuts. That is a conservative attitude that wants to protect their kind, just like the last 8 years with a greedy ruthless administration. -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy Once again: It's not a matter of need. It is a matter of owning what you earn, whether it's a lot or not. .. .. > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@... > <mailto:matchermaam@ com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3 %20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy> > matchermaam <matchermaam> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 5:06 pm (PDT) > > And the Republicans have contributed to the general welfare? How, by > giving tax cuts to the wealthy that don't need them? > > Roni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 In the Tampa vicinity housing sales have turned around but prices are still very low. Repo's and short sales are available for less than 50% of recent sales; often less than the appraised value of the lot alone. AFAIK there's not much available in good financing though. We've been trying to close on a short sale now for under 100k that sold for 200k a couple of years ago; and in an upscale neighborhood where the typical sales presently are still 50% higher than that. But there are a couple of 2nd/3rd mortgages that are complicating things so my wife is ready to invite the bank to take a flying leap. It would not be to flip, though. It would be a rental for a time and then a winter Florida home for us. Our present home is much too large for us, and she wants one in Ohio for the summer [her relatives live there]. .. .. > > Posted by: " " kennio@... > <mailto:kennio@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big\ %20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy> > Kennio <Kennio> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 5:51 pm (PDT) > > NOW is not a good time to flip houses unless you are very experienced > and/or doing a lot of them at once. I am not flipping house now I > don't need the stress for such a small profit margin. Home prices here > in Los Angeles dropped 2.5% a month for the last 12 months and we're > still heading down. Pity the poor bastard that get suckered into any > of these low interest rates and buys now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 It's a matter of personal philosophy. Liberals will say yes while conservatives will say no. Liberals will approve of high taxes [especially on " the wealthy " ] but when they fall into the wealthy class they tend to avoid them by legal or illegal means. Look at the number of tax cheats in Obama's appointments. .. .. > > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@... > <mailto:sweetnwright@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%2\ 0Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 5:57 pm (PDT) > > I'm not talking about flipping ; ) > CW > BTW just because another person makes more money doesn't make him/her > responsible for the one who is money dumb ; ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 One reason to give the wealthy tax cuts is so they will keep their companies here in America ; ) Traveling? Know someone who is? Use my travelocity site www.travelfhtm com/crystalwright -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy Once again: It's not a matter of need. It is a matter of owning what you earn, whether it's a lot or not. .. .. > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@... > <mailto:matchermaam@ com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3 %20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy> > matchermaam <matchermaam> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 5:06 pm (PDT) > > And the Republicans have contributed to the general welfare? How, by > giving tax cuts to the wealthy that don't need them? > > Roni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 The country was formed in a manner to insure that no religious beliefs of any kind are forced upon the citizens. That is what " freedom of religion " really means. You don't have freedom of religion if any person or entity has the right to demand that you follow his/her particular creation myth. I suspect that even then some people had figured out the nature of creation myths. .. .. > > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@... > <mailto:sweetnwright@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%2\ 0Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 7:08 pm (PDT) > > I must disagree with you saying religious writing are irreverent. On what > basis do you think this country was formed? Or do you mean Religious > writing are irreverent to our country's current financial state? > CW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Oh, please! Look at the number of tax cheats in congress and the house, especially with the republicans! Geez, you conservatives make a big frigging deal, people make mistakes on their taxes all the time. At least he corrected it and admitted it. I like to see how many of the republicans admit that they made mistakes or actually cheated on their taxes! The number of private taxpayers who have their taxes done by a CPA is high and it is also a significant number of people who get in trouble with the IRS because their tax preparer screwed up! -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy It's a matter of personal philosophy. Liberals will say yes while conservatives will say no. Liberals will approve of high taxes [especially on " the wealthy " ] but when they fall into the wealthy class they tend to avoid them by legal or illegal means. Look at the number of tax cheats in Obama's appointments. .. .. > > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@... > <mailto:sweetnwright@cox net?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3 %20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 5:57 pm (PDT) > > I'm not talking about flipping ; ) > CW > BTW just because another person makes more money doesn't make him/her > responsible for the one who is money dumb ; ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Politicians typically express religious conviction, even if their actions indicate they don't have any. A recent president may have gone " ho-hopping " every Saturday night [or more often] but usually he could be found with a Bible in his hand headed for church Sunday morning. In any event when one has a creation myth that is a total mish-mash of earlier creation myths, full of contradictions and inconsistencies it is foolish to demand that any person with the intelligence and education to know the nature of creation myths to devoutly follow that particular one. Despite the probably beliefs of many of our founders they managed to create the situation in which neither the government nor any other entity has the right to demand you worship any particular mythical being. None of which addresses the matter of whether God exists or not. But even if he/she/it does there is absolutely zero scientific support for one mythical God over another. .. .. > > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@... > <mailto:sweetnwright@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%2\ 0Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 8:10 pm (PDT) > > This country was formed so that we could worship God the way we wanted to > and not be bound by the way the King wanted them to worship. Here is a > quote: > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Well, the financial experts are also calling the homes toxic assets, too. That goes for the European mortgage business that had its' meltdown. I heard this on NPR and BBC. -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy " Toxic assets " actually refer to the securities or bonds [or whatever] created that are backed by the mortgages. These securities were marketed as being extremely safe, with a very low default rate of a tiny percentage at most. When the default rate went to several percent that changed the whole picture of the value of these assets. Now with a loss ratio of several times the expected rate the securities could not find buyers at any price; despite the fact that [at least early on] more than 90% of the mortgages were current. Banks must by law have a certain level of assets compared to liabilities. Assets that cannot be sold at any price are essentially worthless, even in the present case where 80 to 90% of the underlying mortgages are good investments. So the value of the assets of the banks fell below the requirements of the law, and they were/are in deep trouble. .. .. > > Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@... > <mailto:deifspirit@msn com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3 %20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy> > aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 9:25 pm (PDT) > > No, but I heard about it on NPR on my ipod. I also learned all about how > some investors are buying up some of the toxic assets [ foreclosure homes] > and either selling them back to the homeowners at a different mortgage > rate > or renting it to them so at least they can stay in their homes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Eliminate the entire tax code and replace it with a point of sale's tax. Then, there will be no loopholes for individuals or corporations and we could all concentrate of creating the most wealth by creating maximum value, not lowering the value and jobs we can create by screwing with our business plans in a way that minimizes taxes. Being the most productive in this country is not as profitable as creating less value but in a way that is more tax efficient. Complicated taxes lowers the standard of living and the total amount of jobs available to be filled. Don't forget, avoiding taxes is and can never be illegal. Evading taxes is illegal. I avoid taxes for example by taking personal deductions - that's legal. I can take the total square footage of my house divided by the size of my office and deduct all my mortgage, utility, etc., expenses at that percentage rate which for me is about 15%. I get to deduct 15% of the cable bill. The gas bill, insurance bill, state real estate tax bill, electric bill, broadband bill, all provide deductions for a home office. Like I said above, eliminate the entire tax code and replace it with a point of sale tax and all individuals and corporations would pay the full price on all the goods and services they use. They would then concentrate on value creation instead of tax efficiency and the standard of living would go up on average for everyone and there would be no corporations that could avoid taxes. (Ok, many corporations would concentrate on value creation. Some corporations concentrate of getting government subsides and enacting laws to limit competition or give them exclusive rights to some public resources by paying off legislators with campaign donations etc., and that's just evil.) I've been looking at moving my resources offshore where I could get better tax efficiency as my income increases and I wouldn't bother if the tax code were eliminated or totally simplified - except there is a problem that the dollar is going to continue to decrease in value and money held in other currencies will increase in value as a result when compared to the US dollar - thanks to US government money printing practices. Steve Nancie Barnett wrote: > Not necessarily true... There are wealthy companies that are doing business > on the USA soil and still are not paying their fair share in taxes. That > attitude is pandering to the kidnappers. The USA has been taken hostage with > that attitude and the end result is these mega rich corporations are not > paying their fair share in taxes. > > -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: > Thy > > > > > One reason to give the wealthy tax cuts is so they will keep their companies > here in America ; ) -- Steve - dudescholar4@... Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html " If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 That's exactly what I did on a short sale. ________________________________ From: Steve <dudescholar4@...> hypothyroidism Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:33:02 PM Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy I think the 2nd and 3rd are really in a weak position. Let them know that unless they settle for 10 cents on the dollar, you are going to walk away from the short sale (and plan to do exactly that), the bank is going to foreclose, and they will get Nada. You're offering them 10% which is 10% more than they will get if the 1st forecloses. Steve wrote: > In the Tampa vicinity housing sales have turned around but prices are > still very low. Repo's and short sales are available for less than 50% > of recent sales; often less than the appraised value of the lot alone. > AFAIK there's not much available in good financing though. We've been > trying to close on a short sale now for under 100k that sold for 200k a > couple of years ago; and in an upscale neighborhood where the typical > sales presently are still 50% higher than that. But there are a couple > of 2nd/3rd mortgages that are complicating things so my wife is ready to > invite the bank to take a flying leap. > > It would not be to flip, though. It would be a rental for a time and > then a winter Florida home for us. Our present home is much too large > for us, and she wants one in Ohio for the summer [her relatives live there]. > > > . > . > >> Posted by: " " kennio (DOT) com >> <mailto:kennio (DOT) com?Subject=%20Re% 3A%20Cows% 2C%20Geopolitics %2C%20and% 20Big%20Business %20Re%3A% 20%5Bhypothyroid ism%5D%20Re% 3A%20Thy> >> Kennio <http://profiles. / Kennio> >> >> >> Tue Apr 7, 2009 5:51 pm (PDT) >> >> NOW is not a good time to flip houses unless you are very experienced >> and/or doing a lot of them at once. I am not flipping house now I >> don't need the stress for such a small profit margin. Home prices here >> in Los Angeles dropped 2.5% a month for the last 12 months and we're >> still heading down. Pity the poor bastard that get suckered into any >> of these low interest rates and buys now. -- Steve - dudescholar4@ basicmail. net Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html " If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Yup, they went international and are no longer loyal to the USA. ________________________________ From: Nancie Barnett <deifspirit@...> hypothyroidism Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:35:03 PM Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy Not necessarily true... There are wealthy companies that are doing business on the USA soil and still are not paying their fair share in taxes. That attitude is pandering to the kidnappers. The USA has been taken hostage with that attitude and the end result is these mega rich corporations are not paying their fair share in taxes. -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy Once again: It's not a matter of need. It is a matter of owning what you earn, whether it's a lot or not. .. .. > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam > <mailto:matchermaam @ com?Subject= %20Re%3A% 20Cows%2C% 20Geopolitics% 2C%20and% 20Big%20Business %20Re%3 %20%5Bhypothyroidis m%5D%20Re% 3A%20Thy> > matchermaam <http://profiles. / matchermaam> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 5:06 pm (PDT) > > And the Republicans have contributed to the general welfare? How, by > giving tax cuts to the wealthy that don't need them? > > Roni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Yeah, right. We just tried the tax cuts for 8 years. IT DIDN'T WORK. ________________________________ From: <res075oh@...> hypothyroidism Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:49:35 PM Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy AMEN!!! Steve for president! .. .. > > Posted by: " Steve " dudescholar4@ basicmail. net > <mailto:dudescholar4@ basicmail. net?Subject=%20Re% 3A%20Cows% 2C%20Geopolitics %2C%20and% 20Big%20Business %20Re%3A% 20%5Bhypothyroid ism%5D%20Re% 3A%20Thy> > dudescholar <http://profiles. / dudescholar> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 7:16 pm (PDT) > > > > wrote: > > > Your argument supports that we in the upper income tax brackets > > have to shoulder the burden a while... the little guy dies if we > > don't. > > I don't think so. The people who should have lost money are the > investors in the credit default swaps. They were wealthy, have an > obligation to understand their investments, and were in a position to > take risks. Stock holders and bond holders in banks also have an > obligation to understand their risks. Then the banks started to have > problems, the losers should have been the wealthy investors, not the tax > payers. No taxes should ever be foisted on anyone to pay for the > failures of the rich to manage their own investment risks. There should > have been no government bailouts and bankruptcy should have been par for > the course. The ideal that the people should pay for the incompetent of > the largest institutions is a fallacy. The bankruptcy of Lehman > Brothers is going smoothly with assets being sold off in a timely and > not a rushed fashion. The banks that were wise managers were forced > into taking government freebies since there competitive position would > be compromised by poorly managed banks being allowed to continue to > operate and compete with them. What should have happened is that poorly > managed banks should have failed and their assets sold off to the wise > managed banks. > > > We are on shaky ground right now and a 3% tax increase is the > > least I can do. It IS a matter of patriotism. > > We are not on shaky ground. If taxes were to be cut, government > revenues would go up. If a point of sales tax were to be created and > all other taxes eliminated, many companies would quickly relocated back > to the USA, 10s of millions of jobs would be created and market forces > would drive wages dramatically higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 >People can and will take care of themselves once the idea that someone >else should take care of them so they don't have to hold a job or get an >education is removed. Reagan dumped the mentally ill into the streets and they remain there today. In every city in every town... hundreds of thousands of people living on the streets. Just because you don't acknowledge them doesn't mean they don't exist. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. ________________________________ From: <res075oh@...> hypothyroidism ; JAMES <res075oh@...> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:08:41 PM Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy Your argument reminds me of the liberal screams that millions of children would die in the streets if Clinton signed into law the bills limiting welfare. It didn't happen, so SOMEBODY was out of touch. People can and will take care of themselves once the idea that someone else should take care of them so they don't have to hold a job or get an education is removed. If you doubt that's true do a bit of research and tell me what happens to the totally destitute and broke Asian immigrants who come to this country. Or just read Sowell's book RACE AND CULTURE. It will be a real eye opener for any true liberal. WARNING! It's not politically correct worth a $#!t; but the facts are compelling. It is actually welfare and the belief in an entitlement to the fruits of someone else's labor that is killing so many people and condemning countless others to a life unfit for a human being. We would actually have FEWER deaths if we eliminated ALL welfare and let those die who could not provide for themselves; however, that IS NOT a solution I would support. I believe we have a moral duty to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves; but even then I believe private charities can do a much better job of it than the government. Private local charities tend to kick your @$$ out if you're a worthless druggie or such who prefers to not work. .. .. > > Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspiritmsn (DOT) com > <mailto:deifspiritmsn (DOT) com?Subject=%20Re% 3A%20Cows% 2C%20Geopolitics %2C%20and% 20Big%20Business %20Re%3A% 20%5Bhypothyroid ism%5D%20Re% 3A%20Thy> > aspenfairy1 <http://profiles. / aspenfairy1> > > > Tue Apr 7, 2009 7:18 pm (PDT) > > You and Steve are speaking from a conservative out of touch mentality > compared to the parents and single parents out there that are > struggling to > survive in a economy that has not provided a living wage in decades > that can > not keep up with the rates of inflation. Our economy has been a 2 person > wage earners for a long time. The majority of Americans and defiantly the > lower income brackets of this society can not make it on a single salary. > The cost of living is killing families in this country and if wasn't for > welfare, WIC, and other social service programs they would be dead. They > are not milking the system. They rely on the system now more than ever. > Charities can not keep up with the demand, because people with money > are not > contributing their fair share to society and the number of poor people are > rising due to the last 8 years of felony behavior on the part of greedy > wall street felons. Food banks literally don't have enough food to go > around and many of the smaller regional charities are going broke > trying to > keep up with the demand. > If we did not have the government social services , poor people would be > more screwed than they are. Not everyone can afford to get an > education and > not everyone has the means to get to a job that maybe 50 miles away from > their home, because our public transportation system is broke. What about > the desperately poor areas of this country , the inner cities slums, they > are born into poverty and they will most likely die in poverty because > there > is not enough money out there to bring them out of poverty. > You are going to tell them they can't or shouldn't accept governmental aid > so they can feed their families? > It is criminal that in a country as wealthy as ours, that we still have > desperate poverty and homelessness. > > -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: > Thy > > Hmmm, I thought he had a pretty good handle on it. With what part do > you disagree? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.